MLB suspends Winters

[voiceoflg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_yl...v=ap&type=lgns

NEW YORK (AP) -- Umpire Mike Winters was suspended by Major League Baseball for the remainder of the regular season on Wednesday because of his confrontation with San Diego's Milton Bradley last weekend.

The Padres claimed Winters baited Bradley, who has a history of losing his temper. Bradley tore a knee ligament when his manager spun him to the ground while trying to keep him from going after the umpire during Sunday's 7-3 loss to Colorado in San Diego.

Winters was suspended because the commissioner's office concluded he had used a profanity aimed at Bradley, a baseball official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the reasoning for the suspension was not announced.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

thats what---3 games?


(memo to mlb: the seasons' over!!)

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

thats what---3 games?


(memo to mlb: the seasons' over!!)

He could lose playoff games and the suspension could carry over into next season. Just have to wait and see if it comes out in a news release or not.

[reddevil19]

Originally Posted by msavakinas

larry... they know the season season is over... thats why they did it. winters didnt do anything wrong he just confronted bradley. bobby meachem claims today that he used a racist remark which i guarantee is bs. he's smarter than that. he was sticking up for his fellow umpire, brian runge. winters shouldnt have gone after him, and this suspension is good because it shuts up bradley for a while but then its bad because it lets Bradley run the show.

maybe Jim Porter can find the video of the flip at the end of the fifth? and maybe the ejection?

1. Isn't "confronting Bradley" wrong in and of itself?

2. Knowing the penalties for criticizing umpires, and imagining the penalties for making THAT kind of an allegation and not being able to back it up, why exactly would anyone make that up? (And please spare me your "he's a rat" garbage)

3. There has to be a better way to "stick up for his fellow umpire."

4. What "show" is "Bradley running?"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by reddevil19

1. Isn't "confronting Bradley" wrong in and of itself?

2. Knowing the penalties for criticizing umpires, and imagining the penalties for making THAT kind of an allegation and not being able to back it up, why exactly would anyone make that up? (And please spare me your "he's a rat" garbage)

3. There has to be a better way to "stick up for his fellow umpire."

4. What "show" is "Bradley running?"

1. Not necessarily.

2. Based on what I've read, the coach has backed off his initial allegations.

(3 & 4 -- no comment).

Here's what I think. This was a typical "chain of events" scenario. No single action was "over the top", but when added together they lead to a negative situation. If any action had not occurred, we wouldn't have had this. (If Bradley hadn't flung the bat, if Runge would have noticed and addressed it immeidately, if Winters had stayed out of it, if Winters hadn't made a show of addressing it, if Runge hadn't brought it back up later, if Bradley had let it go, ...)

They were all to blame, and all have the "defense" of "well, he started it."

MLB is right to send them to "time out", and I bet MLB know more about the story then will ever be made public.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1. Not necessarily.

2. Based on what I've read, the coach has backed off his initial allegations.

(3 & 4 -- no comment).

Here's what I think. This was a typical "chain of events" scenario. No single action was "over the top", but when added together they lead to a negative situation. If any action had not occurred, we wouldn't have had this. (If Bradley hadn't flung the bat, if Runge would have noticed and addressed it immeidately, if Winters had stayed out of it, if Winters hadn't made a show of addressing it, if Runge hadn't brought it back up later, if Bradley had let it go, ...)

They were all to blame, and all have the "defense" of "well, he started it."

MLB is right to send them to "time out", and I bet MLB know more about the story then will ever be made public.

If they would've just ejected Bradley in the fifth inning, none of this would have happened. Just evidence to show that "keeping people in the game" brings risks to the umpires, as well.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1. Not necessarily.

2. Based on what I've read, the coach has backed off his initial allegations.

(3 & 4 -- no comment).

Here's what I think. This was a typical "chain of events" scenario. No single action was "over the top", but when added together they lead to a negative situation. If any action had not occurred, we wouldn't have had this. (If Bradley hadn't flung the bat, if Runge would have noticed and addressed it immeidately, if Winters had stayed out of it, if Winters hadn't made a show of addressing it, if Runge hadn't brought it back up later, if Bradley had let it go, ...)

They were all to blame, and all have the "defense" of "well, he started it."


MLB is right to send them to "time out", and I bet MLB know more about the story then will ever be made public.

Quite a spin. But the facts and the quotes point to the umpire as the bad guy in this one.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Everyone write it down. I agree with Tyler.

I like Mike Winters. I've always found him to be a real stand-up guy. I enjoyed auditing his officiating classes. I've known him for years. But in this case he was wrong.

The reason players only get ejected for calling an umpire a f****** piece of s*** is because they are not held to the same standards. The umpire is expected by the nature of his job to be above that sort of pedantic name calling. Winters could have just as easily just told Bradley to shut the f*** up, and Bradley probably would have said either, "Okay boss" or had a meltdown as he is known for. Either way, Winters would not be suspended right now.

I was suspended for the remainder of the season back in 1991 for an incident involving a rude fan and a certain crotch grab and hand gesture I made after the guy rode me throughout both ends of a double header in a tournament. Hey, I had to go before the board and the vote went 6 to 5 against me, with the president casting the tie-breaking vote. I lost a month's worth off HS ball because of my stupidity.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by reddevil19

1. Isn't "confronting Bradley" wrong in and of itself?

2. Knowing the penalties for criticizing umpires, and imagining the penalties for making THAT kind of an allegation and not being able to back it up, why exactly would anyone make that up? (And please spare me your "he's a rat" garbage)

3. There has to be a better way to "stick up for his fellow umpire."

4. What "show" is "Bradley running?"

1. Certainly not. However, the rules as to how that is done have changed.

As recently as the 70's and 80's umpires it was acceptable for umpires to use the same language as the Rats during heated confrontations. An F-you from the Rat was met with an F-you, too from the umpire. "Piece of ****" was and is a common reference of and by both rats and umpires.

Sometime in the last 20 years, for whatever reason, umpires have had their leash yanked when it comes to language on the field. I don't if today's player get his feelings hurt easier or what, but umpires are now taught to avoid using Rat language when arguing with Rats. Winters apparently lost his cool and slipped to the old ways.

2. Who knows why the first base coach lied. He lied twice. First he told the media that Winters made a "racial comment." Then he said it was a comment that "could be taken racially." With that, he threw Winters under the bus.

The result of F1's testimony and other (lip reading?) experts called upon by MLB indicate that Winters called the POS rat a "F@#&ing piece of sh!t."

The MLB investigation, according to some inside, also indicates that Winters reported exactly what he said to his crew chief. So when the first base coach also told the media that Winters lied to his crew chief, he was lying again.

3. Better language, perhaps.

4. None that I care to see.

So, while the original allegations against Winters have been proven false, he was found guilty of using inappropriate language, which he admitted, and has been suspended. Despite SDS claims, I have no problem admitting Winters' error now that the facts are known, and I believe his punishment is appropriate.

Now, I can wait just as patiently for the other shoe to fall. What penalty will be appropriate for Bradley?

[reddevil19]

Ok, I can see where you guys are coming from on this with your experiences and I appreciate the responses. I'm guessing that we're never going to publicly get the rest of the conversation that occurred, and at this point, it probably doesn't matter. Meacham probably should stop talking altogether now.

Someone mentioned that Winters "couldn't" eject Bradley from 1st at the time of the bat flip. It sure looked like that was his intention, but he stopped himself. In my time when I used to do PA and stats for my former High School's baseball team, I saw on a couple of occasions where one umpire got rid of a player who showed up the other umpire behind his back. I'm guessing that something like that maybe is frowned upon at MLB level? From my fan perspective, I really wish Winters had done that.

Thanks again for your insights.

[UmpLarryJohnson]

mr Devil: 'attention in the compound.... hes a rat. that is all'

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpLarryJohnson

mr Devil: 'attention in the compound.... hes a rat. that is all'

[reddevil19]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Question: Did you join this board only to discuss THIS? If so, go away, troll.

Not necessarily. Like I said in my first post, I've been reading this forum since early this year when I found it looking for some insight into a rule interpretation I saw in a high school game. I've always had an interest in umpiring and I've found many things here interesting.

I only posted on this because I was at the game and thought maybe an eyewitness account might be of interest for the discussion. I probably would have posted earlier in the season when I saw some things of interest and had questions, but I didn't realize you didn't have to join the paysite to post. I don't consider anything I've done to be "trolling." I don't see how following up on the matter would be considered as such, unless your definition of a "troll" is someone who doesn't just blindly agree with your personal point of view.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by reddevil19

Not necessarily. Like I said in my first post, I've been reading this forum since early this year when I found it looking for some insight into a rule interpretation I saw in a high school game. I've always had an interest in umpiring and I've found many things here interesting.

I only posted on this because I was at the game and thought maybe an eyewitness account might be of interest for the discussion. I probably would have posted earlier in the season when I saw some things of interest and had questions, but I didn't realize you didn't have to join the paysite to post. I don't consider anything I've done to be "trolling." I don't see how following up on the matter would be considered as such, unless your definition of a "troll" is someone who doesn't just blindly agree with your personal point of view.

Not at all. This board, though, has had a lot of posters come (and just as quickly go) when something controversial happens involving officiating.

You're just as welcome as anyone else, although I hope you'll stay a while.

I've been wondering how many Padres Froemming will eject this coming weekend, though

Hey, Bob, do I have to get my freaking posts approved so you won't delete them? It's getting ridiculous around here. And you're being over officious, which I know isn't your nature.

[reddevil19]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Not at all. This board, though, has had a lot of posters come (and just as quickly go) when something controversial happens involving officiating.

You're just as welcome as anyone else, although I hope you'll stay a while.

I've been wondering how many Padres Froemming will eject this coming weekend, though

Ok. I'd imagine that has happened, but I'm not into that kind of stuff.

Hopefully Bruce doesn't have to eject anyone. If he does, I'm 100% certain they'll deserve it.